STORY ARCHIVE

In December 2009, representatives from nearly 200 countries will gather in Denmark to hammer out the most important carbon reduction agreement the world has ever made. Amidst reports the climate is closer to a tipping point than expected, they will have just a fortnight to find a practical solution to global warming.

Copenhagen

TRANSCRIPT

NarrationThe situation could not be more urgent. The climate system is shifting more rapidly than even the experts anticipated.

Dr Jonica Newby So just how bad is it? And why is Copenhagen seen as such a crucial decider on whether we can actually tackle this unprecedented problem?

NarrationProfessor Will Steffen is a co-author of the 2009 Synthesis Report .which summarises the latest climate change science presented at a special meeting of thousands of scientists held earlier this year.

Prof. Will Steffen:What that meeting I think really brought home was a sense of urgency. In layman's terms we're heading for the worst case scenario as we're tracking now. Sea level rise is tracking at the upper level range of projections, air temperature moves up and down because it has a lot of variability in it but ocean temperature is certainly tracking at the upper level.

Prof. Will Steffen: I think the thing that alarms me the most is the combination of what's happening in the ocean and what's happening in the ice sheets. Ice sheets are probably moving more rapidly than we thought was conceivable five or ten years ago. You see large blocks of ice are splitting off the outlet glaciers, they slide into the sea and the water level raises instantly..

Narration125,000 years ago, global average temperatures were around a degree and a half warmer than today . Sea levels were 4 to 6 metres higher

Prof. Will Steffen:The first thing we noticed before we got into the climate system itself was that emissions were tracking again at the upper level, or near the upper level of those projections.

Dr Jonica NewbyWorst-case scenarios?

Prof. Will Steffen:Worst-case scenarios. Three things are happening. One is the increasing efficiency of energy use in the OECD countries started to stall around 2000 and 2002. The second thing that's happened is China and India indeed have come on the scene. They're using a lot more energy so they contribute to emissions. The third thing is the land and the oceans which together actually pull slightly more than half of our emissions back out of the atmosphere. It appears that he ocean sink is weakening. So when you add those three things up you get a surge in the growth rate of CO2 in the atmosphere. So that we're not just seeing a steady increase in CO2 that we've got to turn around, we're seeing an acceleration in CO2 build-up which we have to turn around. I don't think many Australians or many people around the world have really framed what this problem means.

Dr Jonica NewbySo - Copenhagen, who's going and why is it important?

Prof. Will Steffen: Its' one of a series of negotiation meetings that are held under the auspices of the UN framework convention on climate change. The next big meeting of all the countries that have signed on, is in Copenhagen in December. It's thought to be a critical meeting because the clock is ticking away, we know that climate is shifting now towards the upper range of projections, we know that the Kyoto protocol inadequate though it is, is going to run out in 2012 so the heat is on so to speak to get something in place post-Kyoto. So I think there is a great significance to this meeting. There are some very, very deep philosophical issues that need to be sorted out. I think the real problems are the equity issues between the industrialised countries and the developing countries. The inevitable impacts of climate change will disproportionately hit the poorest of the world for a number of reasons. There needs to be some financial help for the poorest people in the world to cope with this. We need to get some agreement on technology transfer between wealthy countries and developing countries in terms of mitigation. Clean energy technologies, renewable energy technologies. If you calculate how much each human should be allowed to emit and it comes something around two tonnes of carbon dioxide for a year China is already at four. The poorest african countries are well below two. Australia is about twenty-five the and US is not far behind.If we come out with an agreement about how we as a global community are going to go forward that will be a massive achievement.

Dr Jonica NewbyDo you think we can?

Prof. Will Steffen:Ah, big ask, very big ask. It's not out of the question. A lot of states are moving fast, Obama himself is moving fast. You look at the Scandinavian countries. They're well on their way to 40, 50 per cent renewables today. So yes it can be done.

Dr Jonica NewbyIs there a threshold of temperature above which we potentially enter dangerous climate change?

Prof. Will Steffen:The threshold that most people talk about is around two degrees.

Prof. Will Steffen:What happens at two degrees? Well we'll probably see certainly impacts on water resources in Australia and other parts of the world. We'll certainly see more extreme events like heatwaves. The Great Barrier Reef will really struggle at two degrees, it will be absolutely on the borderline, we will lose the Himalayan glaciers at two degrees, we question about the stability of Greenland at two degrees. Two degrees is not safe. But we can maybe cope with it with vigorous adaptation.

When you get three to four degrees I think almost all scientists would agree that you're in fairly dangerous territory by any reasonable definition that people would have as dangerous. Massive losses of biodiversity, really big changes to water resources, very very hot temperatures, very extreme bushfires and so on. We see the trends already at three-quarters of a degree. And that should give us pause for thought. I think the next ten years are crucial. If we're not really on top of this and bending those curves down by 2020 I think we're really behind the eight-ball at that point.

YOUR COMMENTS

Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added.

Richard Wood - 22 Dec 2009 11:40:38pm

Climate change is important!Peak oil is important!But the real problem is the number of people walking the surface of this earth,we need to loose about four billion souls over the next one hundred years.Trying to solve climate change in isolation won't work.

First we had the IPCC report "The Science of Climate Change 1995", where lead auther Benjamin D. Santer removed the following conclusions made by genuine scientists, and without the scientists being made aware of this change.

"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

"No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."

"Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."

Then we have some choice quotes from so-called âconsensus scientistsâ.

âThe two MMs [Canadian skeptics Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think Iâll delete the file rather than send to anyone.âPhil Jones email, Feb 2 2005

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report, Kevin and I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"Phil Jones Director, The CRU[cutting skeptical scientists out of an official UN report]

"The fact is that we ca

Greenhoax - 04 Dec 2009 2:20:23pm

Pouring Cold Water On The Chief âScientistâDecember 4 2009

Chief âScientistâ Penny Sackett dismisses the significance of nearly a decade of cooling of the atmosphere, despite predictions of the warmist models:

Asked to explain data that showed the earth had been cooling in recent years, the trained astrophysicist acknowledged air temperatures had levelled during the La Nina weather pattern, now nearing an end.

âBut next time someone talks about cooler weather, ask them if they are talking about the temperature in the small amount of atmosphere above the surface of the earth or the great mass of heat retained in the worldâs oceans,â she said.

Hmm.

Good question, Chief âScientistâ, and itâs true one of us is confused. Shall we talk about these measures of ocean temperature, which also show an unexpected fall latelyâŚ

Chief âScientistâ Penny Sackett dismisses the significance of nearly a decade of cooling of the atmosphere, despite predictions of the warmist models:

Asked to explain data that showed the earth had been cooling in recent years, the trained astrophysicist acknowledged air temperatures had levelled during the La Nina weather pattern, now nearing an end.

âBut next time someone talks about cooler weather, ask them if they are talking about the temperature in the small amount of atmosphere above the surface of the earth or the great mass of heat retained in the worldâs oceans,â she said.

Hmm.

Good question, Chief âScientistâ, and itâs true one of us is confused. Shall we talk about these measures of ocean temperature, which also show an unexpected fall latelyâŚ

Or this?

Or this:

Your call.

Sorry?

What was that?

Er, you did know, didnât you, that the oceans have been cooling lately, too?

Warmist Tony Jones interviews fellow alarmist Lord Stern on Lateline for nearly 10 minutes without asking him a single question about Climategate, even though their main subject is the silliness of sceptics like Tony Abbott to doubt âthe scienceâ.

But if ABC presenters wonât bring up Climategate, Lord Stern discovers the angry public or others sure will:

EMMA ALBERICI:âBut Lord Nicholas Sternâs press conference was hijacked by questions about the underlying science of his assumptions after hackers broke into the computer systems of the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit last month.â

Hijacked?

Alberici, another ABC employer, seems upset that the public is doing what should have been done by her colleagues, and asking questions about climate science that badly need answers.

(UPDATE: A reader says in Albericiâs defence that sheâs mentioned Climategate more often than the ABCâs environment reporters.)

Meanwhile Marian Wilkinson, whose ABC documentary last year predicted a possible loss of all Arctic ice by 2012, complains about Abbottâs rise:

âThere is no argument that Abbottâs leadership marks the triumphant return of the climate sceptics to the top of the federal Liberal Party.â

Wilkinson missed the obvious analogy: Abbottâs rise marks a return of sceptics thatâs as crushing to warmists as the return of Arctic ice.http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

Only a gullible alarmist would believe the garbage being put out by these "scientists"

Yet more handiwork by the âscientistsâ our alarmist friends have so much trust in!November 30 2009

Weâve already seen serious questions raised about the way a warming rise was calculated in New Zealand.

Willis Eschenbach now describes how the Climategate scientists misled Swedenâs Professor Wibjorn Karlen about the temperatures over Nordic countries, too, when he asked how the IPCC had produced graphics like these for northern Europe:

What puzzled Karlen was that the data he was looking at for Nordic countries in fact showed no warming above what had been witnessed in the 1930s:

Wrote Karlen to the Climategate scientists:

ât is hard to find evidence of a drastic warming of the Arctic. It is also difficult to find evidence of a drastic warming outside urban areas in a large part of the world outside Europe. However the increase in temperature in Central Europe may be because the whole area is urbanized (see e.g. Bidwell, T., 2004: Scotobiology â the biology of darkness. Global change News Letter No. 58 June, 2004). â

âSo, I find it necessary to object to the talk about a scaring temperature increase because of increased human release of CO2. In fact, the warming seems to be limited to densely populated areas.â

Climate Change Minister Penny Wrong this week released a suspiciously-timed report claiming 250,000 Australian homes could be drowned by rising seas by 2100, thanks to global warming.

The report claimed that warming could cause the seas to rise not by the 59cms that the most gloomy IPCC model put as the upper limit, but by 1.1 metres - or even 1,90 metes.

More than three times as much.

In a post below, with the help of reader Lazlo, I show how Wrongâs report, produced by her own department, actually told untruths about the IPCC predictions and relied on a discredited paper to justify its much more alarmist figure.

Now Kris Sayce, editor of Money Morning, picks yet more trickery in the report - trickery that should have been spotted by any competent, unbiased scientist in Wrongâs department.

Hereâs just one extract from his email mail-out:

But first Iâll give you the (Wrongâs) Departmentâs interpretation of the (Bureau of Meterologyâs) research (on sea level rises):

âGlobal mean sea level has risen about 20 centimetres since pre-industrial times (Figure 2.6), at an average rate of 1.7 millimetres per year during the 20th century. Since 1993, high-quality satellite observations of sea levels have enabled more accurate modelling of global and regional sea-level change. From 1993 to 2003, global sea level rose by about 3.1 millimetres per year, compared to 1.8 millimetres per year from 1961 to 2003. These rates of increase are an order of magnitude greater than the average rate of sea-level rise over the previous several thousand years.â

Is that enough to scare you?

An average of 3.1 millimetres per year between 1993 to 2003âŚ But hold on, letâs see what the Bureau of Meteorology actually had to say...:

âA useful datum to distinguish abnormally high sea levels is the Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT), the highest level that can be predicted to occur under any combination of astronomical conditions. Likewise the Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT) is the lowest level that can be predicted under any combination of astronomical conditions. To properly determine HAT and LAT tidal predictions must span at least 18.6 years, which is the period of a full rotation of the moonâs orbital plane about the ecliptic.â

In other words, using a ten year time frame is not scientifically valid as it doesnât take into account the full 18.6 year orbit of the moon. And every fifth grader knows that the moon influences the tidesâŚ

But look at the quote above from the Department again. It states, that since pre-industrial times the global mean

Greenhoax - 18 Nov 2009 4:16:40pm

Your friend Prof Steffen should be able to explain this article to you ...

And just in time for the "debate" on KRudd's emissions tax swindle too!

How To âAdjustâ A 59cm Sea Level Projection To 1.1metresNovember 18 2009

Remember this big scare a few days ago, suspiciously timed to coincide with KRudd sending his colossal tax on emissions to the Senate?

âTHE Federal Government says an alarming report on rising sea levels backs the need to have the emissions trading scheme agreed to without delay. â

âThe Climate Change Risks to Australiaâs Coasts report says up to 250,000 Australian homes are at risk of inundation by the turn of the century. The findings are based on a sea level rise of up to 1.1 metres by 2100 and more extreme weather events. â

Those findings shouldnât be ignored, because as reader Lazlo, an academic, has discovered, they are another disgraceful example of how evidence is twisted by alarmist scientists and the bureaucrats of Wrongâs own department.

Lazlo explains

It gets a bit technical but please stay with me.

It shows that they have told a big porkie in order to make their prediction of 1.1 metre sea level rise more âplausibleâ, and that their prediction is based on zero scientific authority.

Chapter 2 of the report: Climate Change in the Coast - the Scientifc Basis, is the foundation. In there, and in the Executive Summary, it is claimed that âThe IPCC report estimated global sea-level rise of up to 79 centimetres by 2100..â.

They are referring to the IPCC Assessment Report 4 (AR4) from 2007, the most recent one. This is untrue. Table SPM.3 on page 13 of the AR4 Summary for Policy Makers clearly shows that projected global average sea level rise at the end of the 21st century by the IPCC is in the range 0.18-0.59 metres, a maximum of 59 centimetres.

This is reiterating the main report from Working Group 1 and the numbers shown in Table 10.7 of their report on page 820.

To justify their 79 centimetres the Department of Climate Change report has a Box 2.2 on page 28.

This states that the IPCC maximum forecast of 59 centimetres is âbased on thermal expansion aloneâ and thus excludes ice melt from glaciers and ice caps.

This is untrue.

Table 10.7 clearly shows that 41 of the 59 centimetres is estimated from thermal expansion with the rest due to ice sheet melt, and the caption to Table 10.7 clearly states this:

The sea level rise comprises thermal expansion and the land ice sum.

So, 59 centimetres is the most the IPCC is prepared to forecast, and much published research since claims that this is unjustifiably exaggerated. But letâs stay with it and ask why DCC needed to LE

Greenhoax - 09 Nov 2009 3:40:53pm

Hey all you "scientists" or "end of the world" preachers ...If climate change is "real" as you hotly claim, why hasn't RURAL Australia warmed over the last 100 years then?ANSWER: The global warming hoax is based on URBAN climate stations and is nothing but URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT!

It's all about global governance and wealth redistribution.

To Michael George Hertel and frank fog.

What global warming? Rural Australia, for example, has not warmed over the last 100 years! The mythical climate change is nothing but urban heat island effect.

QUOTE: In Deniliquin and Bathurst, there has actually been a fall in temperatures over the last 100 years; but in many other regional places there was just no trend, up or down.

Weather observatories in Australia, dating back 100 years or more, show cities getting hotter as they get bigger; but country towns have generally not been warming up.

Some have actually been cooling down.

Most scientists recognise that temperature measurements in cities are influenced by non-climate things such as air-conditioners.

The cities in Australia also show the same trend as cities in the northern hemisphere with the rate of warming here being less 1°C per century.

So the countryside has not been warming up, whereas cities are getting hotter.

Substantial increases in carbon dioxide levels have been observed over this period, so if CO2 really was driving temperature upwards, we would expect a general rise in temperature in the bush and an even bigger rise in cities due to the combined effect of CO2 and non-climatic heating.

In many parts of the world, it's hard to separate these two effects, so we are lucky here in Australia to have records from isolated country locations that are "un-contaminated" by the big city "heat island" effect.

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) provides historical weather data on the internet (URL: www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/weather-data.shtml ).

The average of the peak temperatures for each month is available and this has been plotted in the attached graphs.

Graphs for the mean daily peak temperatures in January are shown for Echuca, Deniliquin and Bathurst - as examples of country sites.

The last graph is for Sydney and shows evidence of the "big city warming effect".

In Deniliquin and Bathurst, there has actually been a fall in temperatures over the last 100 years; but in many other regional places there was just n

Greenhoax - 27 Oct 2009 1:18:08pm

You can tell that an alarmist conference is imminent whenever you hear the words "worse than previously thought"

Clever propaganda!

There is, as yet, no evidence for man-made climate change aside from localised UHI.

Prof Bob Carter put it nicely ...

"Remarkably, given the expenditure and effort spent looking for it since 1990, no summed human effect on global temperature has ever been identified or measured." "Therefore,the human signal most probably lies buried in the variability and noise of the natural climate system."

I for one have fallen for your alarmist claptrap, despite relentless scaremongering.

Neither can I see any significant shift in global climate or sea levels over the last 100 years.

Warmest Regards

Greenhoax

Cole - 03 Nov 2009 9:44:01pm

I hope that's a typo..." I for one have fallen for your claptrap...."

Greenhoax - 08 Nov 2009 12:29:26am

Definitely a typo!

Paul - 25 Oct 2009 9:01:04pm

Whilst everyone is fixated on the CO2 emissions and global warming we are missing a vital point and that is if we continue to spew out billions of tons of pollutants at the rate we currently are then our health issues are going to be the real concern. We cannot continue to spew radioactive coal waste into the atmosphere. YES coal emits huge amounts into the atmosphere along with lots of other chemicals that are killing the environment and us. Nuclear power (and you should all do some research on this and make sure your up to date with the science)is a far better option and less dangerous to us than anything that has been put on the table to date. Are you all willing to cut your footprint for the betterment of all creatures on earth and not just for the ones that are causing the problem through greed in the first place or do you just simply wish to ignore it or argue against it like it doesnt exist? Its time to accept the fact that mankind has royally screwed up and we need to fix it fast.

Rob Ryan - 25 Oct 2009 12:51:26pm

Has Prof Steffen ever read any geology? Does not look like it.

gazelle - 22 Oct 2009 10:56:45pm

I wish that the commentary re Copenhagen would change from it being "negotiations" (which implies that everyone is out to get the best for themselves) to "problem solving" (which implies cooperation for the common good).

And I wish we'd move the discussion from "Is it true?" to "Is it worth the risk?"

Anthony O'Brien - 18 Oct 2009 6:07:53pm

To Catalyst

I am sure the government noted your support and your funding is looking safe.

Bob - 16 Oct 2009 7:16:51pm

In its attempt to scare us into believing temperatures and sea levels are going to rise dangerously, the program displays two texts on the screen: "125,000 years ago global average temperatures were around a degree and a half warmer than today" and "sea levels were 4 to 6 metres higher". Well, they just destroyed their case for human induced warming because there was great industry around then.

Kim Peart - 16 Oct 2009 6:46:33am

The solution is political and political solutions are built on what people will support. To gain support the vision proposed needs to inspire support. I wonder if we need to consider a much bolder approach that will inspire support. Fore instance, a vision that includes building an adjustable sunshade in space to cool the Earth, that will be needed in the future as the Sun slowing gets hotter (now 25% hotter than at the dawn of life 3.5 billion years ago), which would avoid the response of pumping sulphur particles into the atmosphere; build solar power stations in space with the power beamed to Earth by microwave, supplying all Earth's energy needs from the Sun, which would avoid the need to go nuclear and keep fossil fuels as fossils; with these two initiatives kick-start development in space and secure a sustainable presence in space, which would ensure our survival; from a sustainable presence in space, be in a confident position to work toward a sustainable human presence on Earth and a healthier Earthly environment; eliminate poverty in the Solar System by using the unlimited wealth of the Solar System to deliver a healthy life with creative opportunities for all Earth's children, which is a project that can begin now, by building on a future that we have decided to achieve. There is no point going down squealing like a stampede of panicking piglets, when we can use our creative intelligence to build our way to survival, sustainability and opportunity.Kim Peart

Richard Furler - 15 Oct 2009 11:07:20pm

Can this video be available to show my customers and business leaders?

Michael Spencer - 16 Oct 2009 4:03:03pm

Why would you want to? It was just alarmist propaganda from a someone who seems to have overlooked several basic facts and just loves using words like 'might', 'could', 'is likely to' in order to support computer-projected theory which has proven thus far to be dead wrong.

Firstly, 95% of the 'greenhouse' gases is water vapour (clouds!)with CO2 a distant second at 3.62%. Of that 3.62%, only 3.4% of that is anthropogenic; and of that, only 1.4% is Australian! Do the sum: it's piffling amount ...

Secondly, rising CO2 levels have only a logarithmic 'greenhouse' effect. We are now at a level where even a large CO2 increases will have a minor effect. (They will help to increase food production though - plants thrive with higher levels of CO2.)

Thirdly, if the 'greenhouse' effect is of real concern then why aren't the man-made refrigerant gases, such as HFCs of concern. Their Global Warming Potential is much higher than CO2. By way of example, the most common in used today R134a has a GWP of 1,300!

And regardless of all of this: why is the Sun being ignored? Hell's Bells! Solar cycles are regular & there is little question that changes in our weather patterns reflect these. After all, the Sun is a mere 1.3 million times the size of the Earth.

I fear that we have some Earthbound egos that think they are greater!

And the science is most definitely NOT settled!

Tim Curtin - 15 Oct 2009 10:47:12pm

There are many dubious statements in the contribution by Will Steffen to Catalyst tonight (15 October â09).

In the time and space available I deal here with only a few.

Steffen said with my comments in CAPs: âWorst-case scenarios. Three things are happening. One is the increasing efficiency of energy use in the OECD countries started to stall around 2000 and 2002. NOT TRUE FOR all. The second thing that's happened is China and India indeed have come on the scene. They're using a lot more energy so they contribute to emissions. TRUE The third thing is the land and the oceans which together actually pull slightly more than half of our emissions back out of the atmosphere. It appears (sic) that the ocean sink is weakening. NO EVIDENCE FOR THAT. So when you add those three things up you get a surge in the growth rate of CO2 in the atmosphere. NO, YOU DONâT.

FACT: the growth rate of CO2 in the atmosphere has averaged just 0.41 per cent a year since records began in 1958, as shown by the very latest data from Mauna Loa for September 2009 via a vis September 1958. And for the numerically challenged Steffen, a growth rate of less half of one per cent p.a. over 51 years is not very fast â and it has NOT increased over the last decade.

Not only that, there is no trend whatsoever in the growth rate of the growth of atmospheric CO2, simply because on average the oceans and land continue âto pull slightly more [actually nearly 60%] than half of our emissions back out of the atmosphereâ.

Ironically, if Copenhagen gets to agree on anything, it might be to set a target reduction of 60 per cent of emissions from the 2000 level, not the present 2009 level, from which already at present âthe oceans and landâ already âpullâ 60% of current emissions âback out of the atmosphereâ.

Thatâs the good news. The bad news is that if the Copenhagen target is adopted, AND implemented, it will reduce emissions to around 2 billions of carbon, way below the present âpullâ of around 6 billion tonnes by the oceans and land, i.e. by the phyto-plankton which the base feedstock for all marine life including coral reefs, whales and dolphins, and by the photosynthesis which is the basis of ALL land-based plant and animal life. That is a blueprint for the longest suicide note in the history of humanity.

For indeed, what a brave new world awaits us if Will has his way, aided and abetted by Catalyst.

Gerard - 16 Oct 2009 11:37:28am

It would be useful for this commentator to state his credentials in the area. I would like to think that Prof Steffen has established these and uses them to triple check all claims made. Scientists are not known for panic mongering! They are inherently conservative. Reactionary forces are sadly gathering steam, and will help ensure the necessary changes are not made. Such are humans.

Johanna - 21 Nov 2009 10:52:56pm

I find it overwhelming that most Australians are so firmly grounded in their denial. This is almost as sad as the climate change facts and trends. I feel defeated and any hope I had of humans at least attempting to make the necessary changes has just evaporated like our dam.

Tony Carden - 16 Oct 2009 2:28:27pm

Tim, without wanting to buy in too much to the semi-coherent components of your posting, a look at the Mauna Loa dataset http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ reveals that atmospheric CO2 concentration certainly HAS increased over the past decade. I'll leave it to other readers to extrapolate from this example of untruth, the irrelevance of the rest of your and your IPA colleagues' 'arguments'. I'd just also observe that a growth rate of half a percent per year is actually highly problematic.

Michael Spencer - 16 Oct 2009 4:09:00pm

And Tony, don't forget to tell your readers that Mauna Loa just happens to be the world's biggest above-sea-level volcano!

And what do volcanoes produce in large quantities: lots and lots of CO2!

If the measurements were being taken from the bottom of the Nullarbor Plain near the Southern Ocean then that might be a worthwhile study.

Tony Carden - 16 Oct 2009 5:10:46pm

LOL..and of course Michael, your suggestion relies, like all of the blatherings of climate change deniers, on people (including yourself) not checking the data. Scroll down the page I've provided the link for above and you'll see that the Global Mean CO2 increase, based on monitoring stations around the globe, is similar to the data collected at Mauna Loa.

Rob Ryan - 25 Oct 2009 12:49:35pm

Nobody denies that climate is changing. It always has and always will. But we do deny that homo sapiens (sic) has much to do with it. And since we know that plants grow best at higher levels of CO2 (preferably around 1000ppm) why are we trying to get rid of the gas? With looming food shortages we will need all the CO@ we can get.

Tim Curtin - 16 Oct 2009 10:51:01pm

The issues are not whether atmospheric CO2 HAS increased over the past decade, but whether it has increased at an increasing rate as asserted by Steffen, which it has not, and whether increases in atmospheric CO2 are bad, given that they lead to incraesing terrestrial and oceanic productivity (see Graham Farquhar, passim).

Your comment that "I'd just also observe that a growth rate of half a percent per year is actually highly problematic." Really? work out what your share portfolio would be worth now from $100 in 1750 growing at that rate.And do note that Shell helpfully pumps CO2 from its North Sea gas fields into Dutch greenhouses to bring them up to over 1,000 ppm, nearly 3 times the current apocalyptic (according to Steffen) level of atmospheric CO2 (less than 390 ppm).